RIVAS, COMMONWEALTH vs., 77 Mass. 210 COMMONWEALTH vs.

The Dreamers Screenplay Pdf Download. Attorney Ken White, who blogs under the nom de guerre Popehat on issues including free speech laws, told Gizmodo it would not be “impossible” for Damigo to have a.

210 December 16, 2009 - July 6, 2010 Court Below: Superior Court, Essex Present: MILLS, KATZMANN, & FECTEAU, JJ. Controlled Substances. Evidence, Certificate of drug analysis. Constitutional Law, Confrontation of witnesses, Harmless error, Search and seizure, Reasonable suspicion.

Practice, Criminal, Confrontation of witnesses, Harmless error, Motion to suppress. Motor Vehicle, Inspection sticker. Search and Seizure, Automobile, Threshold police inquiry, Reasonable suspicion. Threshold Police Inquiry. At the trial of an indictment charging trafficking in cocaine, the admission in evidence of certificates of drug analysis, without accompanying testimony from the laboratory analyst who produced it, in violation of the defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where the facts in evidence independent of the certificates did not overwhelmingly prove the nature of the substances discovered by police. [211-213] A police detective's mistaken belief that a red certificate of rejection automatically prohibited a car from being driven did not constitute a mistake of law rendering the detective's stop of the criminal defendant's vehicle unreasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, where such a certificate, until corrected, provides an objective factual basis for concluding that there is or may be a defect that makes operation unlawful, and thus gave reasonable grounds for the detective's investigatory stop of the vehicle.

[214-219] INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 23, 2005. Game Maker Exe To Gmkl more. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Peter W. Agnes, Jr., J., and the case was tried before Thomas P. O'Brien for the defendant. O'Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Page 211 KATZMANN, J.

This is an appeal about certificates and stickers. Having been convicted by a Superior Court jury of trafficking in cocaine with a net weight of twenty-eight grams or more in violation of G. 94C, § 32E(b)(2), the defendant, Felix Rivas, appeals. He argues that the admission of laboratory drug certificates violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, requiring reversal.

He also appeals from an order denying a motion to suppress, in which the motion judge concluded that a red rejection inspection sticker affixed to the defendant's vehicle supplied the police with an objectively reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. A grand jury indicted the defendant on the charge of trafficking in cocaine with a net weight of twenty-eight grams or more (G. 94C, § 32E[b] [2]), a school zone violation (G. 94C, § 32J), and possession of a false driver's license (G. The Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi on the latter two charges.

Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to suppress all the evidence discovered after the police stopped the car he was driving, including a pouch containing cocaine. Following an evidentiary hearing, the motion judge issued a memorandum and order, allowing the motion to suppress. However, the motion judge later issued a revised memorandum and order, denying the motion to suppress. During the ensuing trial before a different judge, certificates of drug analysis from the State crime laboratory were admitted over the defendant's objection. The jury found the defendant guilty of trafficking in cocaine, and the defendant timely appealed. Certificates of drug analysis.

As a United States Supreme Court decision issued after the trial here establishes, the admission of the drug certificates, over the defendant's objection, violated the confrontation clause and was error. Melendez-Diaz v.

Massachusetts, 129 S. We apply the 'harmless error' standard of review. See Commonwealth v. Peixoto,, 660-661 (2000).